Quote:
|
Originally Posted by macmanmike6100
Everyone *should* have a living will. Her parents seem unreasonable; while I can't imagine what it's like for that to happen to your own child, I think it's torturous to keep her artificially alive -- with no reasonable hope of recovery -- for so long.
Sure, you want to preserve life, but is that what you call life??
|
I think that this is the crux of the issue. Is what she is experiencing 'life' at all? Is she conscious of anything at all, and more importantly will she ever be conscious at all? From what I've heard there's no chance of a recovery. Would a life in which we were "instantaneously conscious" but there was no link between these instances of consciousness be a proper life? We aren't even sure what she is exactly feeling.
1.People for the removal of the feeding tube see the situation in which there there is no real life as there is no awareness of what is happening or over a time interval. They see that there is no hope of recovery from such a state.
2.People againts the removal of the feeding tube see a woman who is alive and/or a person who could be aware of her soroundings or could recover. I can understand NCB's point that we should proceed caustiously as he doesn't think that we can be sure of point 1, and therefore should keep the feeding tube. (sorry If I have interpreted your arguments incorrectly, feel free to correct me).
I for one think the medical evidence clearly points to 1. and that the wishes of the woman (in this case what her Husband says she would want), should be followed.